Do you feel speed van work

listermint

Zcott wrote: »

The argument against speed humps is that they unnecessarily slow down emergency vehicles too.

Very poor arguement tbh

Matt Simis

Zcott wrote: »

The argument against speed humps is that they unnecessarily slow down emergency vehicles too.

Not unless they are laid incorrectly.. Current rolled out design of Speed ramps are designed to a width thats just under the average width of Fire Engines and Ambulances.

Gardai dont really give a $hit and ramp over them, much like the people they may be chasing (though likely they would still be impaired vs our trained police force.. maybe).

djimi

Matt Simis wrote: »

I think the OP has a vindictive need to see others "punished" thats being legitimised. But anyway, as a former resident in a residential area where people speed (most crashed a lot) we found big fook off speed ramps are more effective as they work against unregistered/stolen/foreign/"muck on the plates" cars and work all year round, all times of the day and all weather conditions.

Your Speed Camera vans saves rhetoric was the poorer option available though Im sure the Government thanks you for some free cash from its citizens. Think of the children etc.

I agree; traffic calming measures are far more effective if you actually want to slow people down (as opposed to just catching them speeding). But residents cannot just go around constructing their own homemade traffic calming measures, so as a short term option having a camera on the road is as good an option as you going to get.

Also by the sounds of it the cameras did their job and slowed people down through the village (even if it was only a short term fix), so wheres the issue?

MugMugs

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Just for clarification, can you define "public highway"? Does a street in a housing estate fall into that category?

Public Highway generally means Public Road/place but it's a UK saying more so.

Public road is defined as

“‘public place’ means—

(a) any public road, and

(b) any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;”;

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Does a street in a housing estate fall into that category?

One would imagine that it does, yes.

Matt Simis

djimi wrote: »

I agree; traffic calming measures are far more effective if you actually want to slow people down (as opposed to just catching them speeding). But residents cannot just go around constructing their own homemade traffic calming measures, so as a short term option having a camera on the road is as good an option as you going to get.

Also by the sounds of it the cameras did their job and slowed people down through the village (even if it was only a short term fix), so wheres the issue?

A: Um Im not suggesting they lay their own ramps, they can petition the council just like the OP did and get them. Its effectively the same route.
B: The problem is his attitude shows a preference that people need to be fined over actually slowing down and also the fact that his solution is pretty crappy, being very short term and completely hit and miss (all the cars in my post not affected at all). All its good for is some minor revenue generation, the worst speed offenders are not affected by something as dumb as a camera van.

djimi

Matt Simis wrote: »

A: Um Im not suggesting they lay their own ramps, they can petition the council just like the OP did and get them. Its effectively the same route.
B: The problem is his attitude shows a preference that people need to be fined over actually slowing down and also the fact that his solution is pretty crappy, being very short term and completely hit and miss (all the cars in my post not affected at all). All its good for is some minor revenue generation, the worst speed offenders are not affected by something as dumb as a camera van.

If you read the first post youll see that they brought the speed issue to the Gardai, who then took it upon themselves to place a speed van on the road. By the sounds of it this resolved the issue, even if just in the short term. I dont see where the problem is? Can you think of a better short term fix?

Petitioning the council is all well and good, but if you have a council who wont listen or cant afford to do anything then petitioning is not going to have much of an effect. If people are actually dying then something urgent needs to be done.

From what I can see of this thread the OP has just given an example of where a speed van has helped in an area where speeding was an issuie. I dont see the need for the usual rabble rabble speed cameras evil revenue generating etc; in this case they seem have actually done their job, which should show that if they are used properly, in areas where they are actually needed, they could possibly be an effective method of resolving an issue with speeding.

dgt

Nobody has come up with a valid reason for the positioning of the vans in my earier posts. No-one has offered to explain why the vans don't safely park near the black spot but would rather park in a location to catch motorists sneakily.

Out of sheer begrudgery my questions haven't been answered. Because I am right about the positioning of those vans is just to raise revenue and the begrudgers don't want to admit that.

Otherwise speak up and prove me wrong (that isn't going to happen)

djimi

dgt wrote: »

Nobody has come up with a valid reason for the positioning of the vans in my earier posts. No-one has offered to explain why the vans don't safely park near the black spot but would rather park in a location to catch motorists sneakily.

Out of sheer begrudgery my questions haven't been answered. Because I am right about the positioning of those vans is just to raise revenue and the begrudgers don't want to admit that.

Otherwise speak up and prove me wrong (that isn't going to happen)

There is no arguement against what you said; for the most part the vans are placed where they will make the most money, not where they will increase safety.

My point was this thread is about where a van has increased safety in its area as intended, yet there are still a lot of people who are going on as if all these vans are is a revenue generator. The point of this thread should be to outline how the vans could be used properly, not that they are an altogether useless system.

brokenarms

dgt wrote: »

Nobody has come up with a valid reason for the positioning of the vans in my earier posts. No-one has offered to explain why the vans don't safely park near the black spot but would rather park in a location to catch motorists sneakily.

Out of sheer begrudgery my questions haven't been answered. Because I am right about the positioning of those vans is just to raise revenue and the begrudgers don't want to admit that.

Otherwise speak up and prove me wrong (that isn't going to happen)

The situation where they have been used in my post is all I can really comment on with certainty .
They used one end of a large bus stop to park the van. A place, I suppose is designed to have a large vehicle parked there.Walkers have easy access around the van and drivers can see past it.
I can see your point when some vans are parked in strange places. But I would imagine as they are not using 4x4 transits, they are very limited on where they can park. There must be a place that has firm or paved ground.

Could you imagine the media photos if one got stuck up to the axles.

Have you any examples there they have been badly parked?


I had hoped I could use the data gathered by the Garda to build a case for some traffic calming methods. There is plans to redevelop the area soon and the van is probably the only way to gather data on bad drivers. Its perfect as a lever to get the council to act. They cant ignore creditable results.
I dont particularly want to see ramps myself. If motorists would simply drive the way they are supposed too, there would be no need.

ironclaw

Matt Simis wrote: »

our trained police force.

:rolleyes:

Too funny.

Also to clarify, a bike (With no front plate) going towards the rear of the van cannot be caught for speeding. A bike travelling away from the rear of the van can be caught. Pictures are only taken at the rear of the van, so only the plate facing the rear of the van can be photographed.

ljpg

djimi wrote: »

Im not really sure how having two Gardai on the road would change that? Okay yes you might catch people for other things, but if the exercise is to slow people down/catch people speeding then it makes little difference whether its a van or a manned checkpoint. I can only assume that the Gardai weighed up the effectiveness of having men standing at a checkpoint where they might catch nobody at all, when they could be used for a more useful purpose elsewhere.

are you honestly trying to suggest that a camera van is a substitute for a manned checkpoint?? garda on the roads can target the real offenders speeding or otherwise and STOP THEM ON THE SPOT!!!! thus preventing an crash/accident,all a camera van will do is send a photograph in the post a couple of weeks later.there is no comparison.

djimi

ljpg wrote: »

are you honestly trying to suggest that a camera van is a substitute for a manned checkpoint?? garda on the roads can target the real offenders speeding or otherwise and STOP THEM ON THE SPOT!!!! thus preventing an crash/accident,all a camera van will do is send a photograph in the post a couple of weeks later.there is no comparison.

In so far as it will only slow/stop motorists on one spot on the road, yes. Neither a camera nor a checkpoint is going to prevent the motorist from putting the foot down once they are passed it, and provided the camera is positioned properly (ie where it is clearly visible in advance rather than around a sharp bend or something) then it will have exactly the same effect as a checkpoint at slowing a car down.

Obviously if a camera is suitably hidden then it isnt going to stop anyone, but if these cameras are truely for safety then they should be fully visible and not hidden from view.

brokenarms

djimi wrote: »

In so far as it will only slow/stop motorists on one spot on the road, yes. Neither a camera nor a checkpoint is going to prevent the motorist from putting the foot down once they are passed it, and provided the camera is positioned properly (ie where it is clearly visible in advance rather than around a sharp bend or something) then it will have exactly the same effect as a checkpoint at slowing a car down.

Obviously if a camera is suitably hidden then it isnt going to stop anyone, but if these cameras are truely for safety then they should be fully visible and not hidden from view.

In fairness djimi, it would take a special type of idiot to put their foot down just after being caught. One would hope a lesson would have be learned with the points and fine they just received.

I have also seen a particular event on the Naas road where there where two check points . Both within 5 miles of each other on the same side.
I would expect trying to explain why you where just caught doing 140kph twice in row would be futile.

ironclaw

brokenarms wrote: »

I have also seen a particular event on the Naas road where there where two check points . Both within 5 miles of each other on the same side.
I would expect trying to explain why you where just caught doing 140kph twice in row would be futile.

To be fair I've seen that once and once only. Its not common practice. In fact in the last 2 years I've seen GoSafe twice. I'd consider it 10 times more likely to see a GoSafe van than a dual Garda laser trap.

Contrast that to the States and I saw a trooper on average every 50 miles (Of over 3500+ road miles)

djimi

brokenarms wrote: »

In fairness djimi, it would take a special type of idiot to put their foot down just after being caught. One would hope a lesson would have be learned with the points and fine they just received.

I have also seen a particular event on the Naas road where there where two check points . Both within 5 miles of each other on the same side.
I would expect trying to explain why you where just caught doing 140kph twice in row would be futile.

It takes a special type of idiot to speed through a village in the first place! Never overestimate the intelligence of some motorists...!

The two checkpoints on the Naas Road would be an interesting one actually. Its one thing doing it at either ends of a windy road, or where there is a junction/traffic lights in between, but given that the Naas Road is a straight stretch of road, say you were caught doing the same speed a couple of miles apart, could you actually be prosecuted twice? Is it deemed to be speeding at a point in time, or is the crime to be driving over the speed limit, as the latter would mean that technically you be prosecuted for the same crime twice, which cannot occur in law.

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

It takes a special type of idiot to speed through a village in the first place! Never overestimate the intelligence of some motorists...!

The two checkpoints on the Naas Road would be an interesting one actually. Its one thing doing it at either ends of a windy road, or where there is a junction/traffic lights in between, but given that the Naas Road is a straight stretch of road, say you were caught doing the same speed a couple of miles apart, could you actually be prosecuted twice? Is it deemed to be speeding at a point in time, or is the crime to be driving over the speed limit, as the latter would mean that technically you be prosecuted for the same crime twice, which cannot occur in law.

Its exceeding the speed limit at a point in time. You could accumulate 12 points in a day if you really wanted to (even from the same van or Garda).

That's nothing compared to these guys though:

http://www.coolhunting.com/culture/bullrun-rally-2012.php

I was on it last year and held the ticket written for $6.2k given to Team Hudson.

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

Its exceeding the speed limit at a point in time. You could accumulate 12 points in a day if you really wanted to (even from the same van or Garda).

So technically they could set up two cameras ten feet apart and be legally able to issue two seperate tickets?

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

So technically they could set up two cameras ten feet apart and be legally able to issue two seperate tickets?

Well that's abit of an exaggeration to be fair. The van needs about 20m to operate. But yes, in a real world situation and correct set up you could put two vans 100m apart and issue two tickets. Why would you however? It would make more sense to put them around a bend or two, or 1km apart for increased safety revenue coverage

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

Well that's abit of an exaggeration to be fair. The van needs about 20m to operate. But yes, in a real world situation and correct set up you could put two vans 100m apart and issue two tickets. Why would you however? It would make more sense to put them around a bend or two, or 1km apart for increased safety revenue coverage

Im not suggesting that they would, but if they were inclined to try and catch people twice for the same speeding offense then what difference would it make whether the cameras were 100m or 1km apart?

I know its all purely hypothetical; I just find it odd that you cannot be prosecuted twice for any other crime, yet you can be done for the same speeding offense multiple times.

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

Im not suggesting that they would, but if they were inclined to try and catch people twice for the same speeding offense then what difference would it make whether the cameras were 100m or 1km apart?

I know its all purely hypothetical; I just find it odd that you cannot be prosecuted twice for any other crime, yet you can be done for the same speeding offense multiple times.

Hypothetically, if you murdered someone, jumped in the car and the murdered someone else in the next town then you'd be up on two counts for murder. Likewise if you waited 6 months between the offences. Its two separate acts. You could not however be prosecuted again once convicted (Assuming no new evidence etc)

Why is speeding any different? Sure by that logic you could be convicted for speeding once and then you could never be prosecuted again because 'it's the same offense' I know in the States however if you receive multiple tickets you are brought to court and you can make your case to have the tickets adjusted and fine reduced.

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

Hypothetically, if you murdered someone, jumped in the car and the murdered someone else in the next town then you'd be up on two counts for murder. Likewise if you waited 6 months between the offences. Its two separate acts. You could not however be prosecuted again once convicted (Assuming no new evidence etc)

Why is speeding any different? Sure by that logic you could be convicted for speeding once and then you could never be prosecuted again because 'it's the same offense' I know in the States however if you receive multiple tickets you are brought to court and you can make your case to have the tickets adjusted and fine reduced.

Im driving down a motorway and drive at 140kmph. I get caught. If, 100m down the motorway, I am caught still doing 140kmph, how is that a seperate offense? I am on the same stretch of motorway, doing the same speed (ie I didnt go under the limit and back over it again). I dont see how that could be considered to be a seperate crime. Its completely different to murdering two people; if you want to use that comparison then it is akin to being arrested twice for the one murder.

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

Im driving down a motorway and drive at 140kmph. I get caught. If, 100m down the motorway, I am caught still doing 140kmph, how is that a seperate offense? I am on the same stretch of motorway, doing the same speed (ie I didnt go under the limit and back over it again). I dont see how that could be considered to be a seperate crime. Its completely different to murdering two people; if you want to use that comparison then it is akin to being arrested twice for the one murder.

You speed at point A was 140km/h.

Your speed at point B was 140km/h.

A and B are in separate locations. You broke the law in two separate places. I really, really don't see you point. You can and will be done for speeding numerous times in the one day. In the above example, if B didn't exist, you would be prosecuted for A. Likewise, if A didn't exist you'd be prosecuted for B. They are entirely separate entities. Your speed between A and B is irrelevant. Its your speed at the instant you were targeted.

By your logic, when can you prosecute someone again after they are caught? When you catch them at 110km/h and then when they go above 120km/h that's a new offense? Seriously now. Come off it.

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

You speed at point A was 140km/h.

Your speed at point B was 140km/h.

A and B are in separate locations. You broke the law in two separate places. I really, really don't see you point. You can and will be done for speeding numerous times in the one day. In the above example, if B didn't exist, you would be prosecuted for A. Likewise, if A didn't exist you'd be prosecuted for B. They are entirely separate entities. Your speed between A and B is irrelevant. Its your speed at the instant you were targeted.

By your logic, when can you prosecute someone again after they are caught? When you catch them at 110km/h and then when they go above 120km/h that's a new offense? Seriously now. Come off it.

I guess we just have different definitions of what constitutes a single offense. To me if point A and point B are 100m apart on a single continuous stretch of road then it is a single offense if you past them both while travelling in excess of the speed limit. Im not suggesting that this would be a defense where there is any significant distance between the two points; obviously two points several miles apart is two seperate offenses. But on the one stretch of road, where its likely that someone speeding between the two points has been a "constant" for want of a better term, then for me at least that should be considered to be a single offense.

AugustusMinimus

ironclaw wrote: »

You speed at point A was 140km/h.

Your speed at point B was 140km/h.

A and B are in separate locations. You broke the law in two separate places. I really, really don't see you point. You can and will be done for speeding numerous times in the one day. In the above example, if B didn't exist, you would be prosecuted for A. Likewise, if A didn't exist you'd be prosecuted for B. They are entirely separate entities. Your speed between A and B is irrelevant. Its your speed at the instant you were targeted.

By your logic, when can you prosecute someone again after they are caught? When you catch them at 110km/h and then when they go above 120km/h that's a new offense? Seriously now. Come off it.

You're logic doesn't make sense. If points A and B are an inch apart, it means you have broken the law twice. If they are a nanometer apart, you have still broken the law twice.

If you drive 5 miles, there are an infinite number of points at which you have broken the law if you speed at any time. Just because you didn't get caught, it doesn't mean you have broken the law an infinite number of times.

The law doesn't expressly say it, but I have no doubt that a judge would construe it to mean speeding in a single journey is a single offence and that if you went to court, you would prob be let off with a 2nd or 3rd speeding offence if you could prove it was part of the one journey. The law is there to ensure safe driving, not to put people off the road due to stupidity in drafting it.

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

I guess we just have different definitions of what constitutes a single offense. To me if point A and point B are 100m apart on a single continuous stretch of road then it is a single offense if you past them both while travelling in excess of the speed limit..

But where do you draw the line so to speak? 100m? 10 minutes? 2 km? The fact is that when your speed was read in a location you were exceeding the speed limit. And every subsequent read is a fresh offence in my eyes if your still exceeding it regardless of time or distance traveled.

But in the real world, your never going to get two GoSafe vans 100m apart. Maybe a km but I sincerely doubt it.

brokenarms

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

You're logic doesn't make sense. If points A and B are an inch apart, it means you have broken the law twice. If they are a nanometer apart, you have still broken the law twice.

If you drive 5 miles, there are an infinite number of points at which you have broken the law if you speed at any time. Just because you didn't get caught, it doesn't mean you have broken the law an infinite number of times.

The law doesn't expressly say it, but I have no doubt that a judge would construe it to mean speeding in a single journey is a single offence and that if you went to court, you would prob be let off with a 2nd or 3rd speeding offence if you could prove it was part of the one journey. The law is there to ensure safe driving, not to put people off the road due to stupidity in drafting it.

But if you where stopped and ticketed then persisted in speeding after a warning. Then get nabbed again down the road.
I would think a judge would nail you nuts to the wall.

AugustusMinimus

brokenarms wrote: »

But if you where stopped and ticketed then persisted in speeding after a warning. Then get nabbed again down the road.
I would think a judge would nail you nuts to the wall.

Agreed. I'm thinking more in line of being caught at point A, but not knowing it and then speeding past point B as part of the same journey.

AugustusMinimus

ironclaw wrote: »

But where do you draw the line so to speak? 100m? 10 minutes? 2 km? The fact is that when your speed was read in a location you were exceeding the speed limit. And every subsequent read is a fresh offence in my eyes if your still exceeding it regardless of time or distance traveled.

But in the real world, your never going to get two GoSafe vans 100m apart. Maybe a km but I sincerely doubt it.

So you're saying its possible to be committing thousands of crimes when speeding on a single journey ?

brokenarms

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

So you're saying its possible to be committing thousands of crimes when speeding on a single journey ?

If you somehow dont spot 1000 speed checks on one journey then maybe a good bicycle with stabilizers are in order :eek:

AugustusMinimus

brokenarms wrote: »

If you somehow dont spot 1000 speed checks on one journey then maybe a good bicycle with stabilizers are in order :eek:

Hold on now.

There's a big difference between being caught for committing a crime and committing the crime itself.

There doesn't have to be any speed camera there for you to be speeding and committing a crime.

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

But where do you draw the line so to speak? 100m? 10 minutes? 2 km? The fact is that when your speed was read in a location you were exceeding the speed limit. And every subsequent read is a fresh offence in my eyes if your still exceeding it regardless of time or distance traveled.

But in the real world, your never going to get two GoSafe vans 100m apart. Maybe a km but I sincerely doubt it.

As I said, where the persons speeding is likely to be a constant then to me it is one offense. The actual distance depends greatly on the road; on a motorway you could concievable travel 10 miles all the while over the speed limit, but as it was a constant it would only be a single offense. On a smaller road obviously the distance could be a lot shorter, but where you could make a case for it being the same constant speed then I think you could make a case for it being the same constant offense.

ljpg

ironclaw wrote: »

But where do you draw the line so to speak? 100m? 10 minutes? 2 km? The fact is that when your speed was read in a location you were exceeding the speed limit. And every subsequent read is a fresh offence in my eyes if your still exceeding it regardless of time or distance traveled.

But in the real world, your never going to get two GoSafe vans 100m apart. Maybe a km but I sincerely doubt it.

i see 2 gosafe vans either side of a 50km zone regular enough,i'd say its a little over a km,maybe a km and a half

ironclaw

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

So you're saying its possible to be committing thousands of crimes when speeding on a single journey ?

By point A and B, I'm assuming two seperate vans at point A and point B. And I'm assuming both vans caught you. I thought that would have been beyond obvious.

So both vans will issue a fine, irregardless of their distance apart as you have been caught for the same offence but in two different places. The key is 'different places'

The same van could not issue you a fine for the exact same photo. However if you past the same van 30 secs / minute / hour later, they could fine you again.

pa990

yes and no

speed vans and speed enforcement in general has its benefits.

There are locations and times that it is appropriate, and locations and times where it is not beneficial.

AugustusMinimus

ironclaw wrote: »

By point A and B, I'm assuming two seperate vans at point A and point B. And I'm assuming both vans caught you. I thought that would have been beyond obvious.

So both vans will issue a fine, irregardless of their distance apart as you have been caught for the same offence but in two different places. The key is 'different places'

The same van could not issue you a fine for the exact same photo. However if you past the same van 30 secs / minute / hour later, they could fine you again.

But by that logic you are saying that the person is committing two separate crimes.

By that logic, you must be committing a crime everytime you speed at any new location, which of course means you're committing an infinite amount of crimes every time you speed as there are an infinite amount of points between any two other points.

You do realise you don't have to be caught to be committing a crime ? You seem to have some idea that you are only committing a crime if you are caught.


How about for instance 6 photos, taken 1 second after each other. The guy would be off the road. Speeding in 6 different places.

ironclaw

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

But by that logic you are saying that the person is committing two separate crimes.

By that logic, you must be committing a crime everytime you speed at any new location, which of course means you're committing an infinite amount of crimes every time you speed as there are an infinite amount of points between any two other points.

You do realise you don't have to be caught to be committing a crime ? You seem to have some idea that you are only committing a crime if you are caught.


How about for instance 6 photos, taken 1 second after each other. The guy would be off the road. Speeding in 6 different places.

Could you honestly be any more pedantic?

Defendant: The 6 photos we taken in series, 1 second apart.

Case probably thrown out on technical error or you'll be given a single set of points. It was the same van, in the same location, at reasonably the same time. I would be keen to note the difference between 1 second and say a much longer time of e.g. 30 seconds.

Defendant: I was caught speeding at Junction 8 and Junction 11. Which are 2 km apart.

You'll get both sets of points for the latter. That is fact. There are plenty of cases to reflect this ruling. You have to be caught to be convicted of a crime. So you could rightly say many people get away with it daily. But on the flip side, yes many people commit the crime every day. Few get convicted. And I'm not advocating speed what so ever. I don't speed.

Have you ever recieved a speeding fine from a Garda? I haven't. But I was handed one just to have a look at. It has the location written on it, legally it has to. Same for the van photos. Date and time written clearly on both of them. So if you happened to pass two vans speeding, you'll get two separate fines. They are autonomous legal entities.

I honestly don't see your point? The bottom line is if you are snapped by two vans in the same minute, day or month you'll get your two sets of points. If your pulled by the Garda twice in the same day, you'll get both sets of points.

challengemaster

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The law doesn't expressly say it, but I have no doubt that a judge would construe it to mean speeding in a single journey is a single offence and that if you went to court, you would prob be let off with a 2nd or 3rd speeding offence if you could prove it was part of the one journey. The law is there to ensure safe driving, not to put people off the road due to stupidity in drafting it.

So if you get caught speeding in 3 separate places between galway and dublin for example, you think because it's 1 journey you can't be charged with multiple speeding offenses?

Obviously the other extreme is talking seconds apart and metres apart, in which case it would be considered the same offense.

Sure by your logic if you get stopped for speeding by a garda in galway, then you can do 220km/h all the way to dublin and not be charged with another speeding offense. What you're implying is ridiculous.


Best of luck to you trying that one. Can't see you getting too far though, particularly as you'd get 12 points at the end of it for contesting.

Iwannahurl

Ilik Urgee wrote: »

Neither does your insinuation that I'm a begrudger.

Am I allowed to park at the pavement outside your door? If yes, then yes to your question. See how impractical the whole lot gets now?

Same as the positioning as a lot of these Go Safe vans.

If I had the slightest idea what you're talking about, I might be inclined to debate it with you.

But since I don't, I'm not.

Iwannahurl

brokenarms wrote: »

I had hoped I could use the data gathered by the Garda to build a case for some traffic calming methods. There is plans to redevelop the area soon and the van is probably the only way to gather data on bad drivers. Its perfect as a lever to get the council to act. They cant ignore creditable results.

I dont particularly want to see ramps myself. If motorists would simply drive the way they are supposed too, there would be no need.

Traffic calming is effective. Speed surveillance is effective. Both have their uses.

If people always behaved the way they are supposed to, there would be no need for police, courts or jails either.

Ilik Urgee

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If I had the slightest idea what you're talking about, I might be inclined to debate it with you.

But since I don't, I'm not.

Think before you go throwing accusations the next time.

Is that simple enough for you?

Actually, don't bother your arse,I'm not interested.

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Traffic calming is effective. Speed surveillance is effective.

On the grand scale of things, I'd be of the opinion traffic calming is far more effective. You have to slow down for a ramp, you don't have to slow down on the off chance a camera is there. For cameras to be effectively they have to have the ability to be placed anywhere. GoSafe is currently too constrained to be effective in my eyes. Most drivers know where they are going to be and adjust accordingly. Granted the Garda can set up anywhere but they don't. I'm not aware of any other country where mobile cameras are constrained to pre-set zones.

If your travelling 100km, and you know a 3km stretch has a GoSafe van (From signs etc) you'll just slow down for that 3% of your journey. You have 97% left to make up 'lost time' (By speed if you want to) Contrast this to 'the fear' of a GoSafe van being anywhere along that 100km stretch. You'll be a lot more cautious and probably slow down to a far greater degree.

djimi

I guess the theory is that the GoSafe vans will be on 3% of your journey, and the Gardai will cover the other 97%, but as you say in reality the Gardai have a very low presence when it comes to their own speed checks (with the exception of certain spots where they almost always set up; its not random).

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

I guess the theory is that the GoSafe vans will be on 3% of your journey, and the Gardai will cover the other 97%, but as you say in reality the Gardai have a very low presence when it comes to their own speed checks (with the exception of certain spots where they almost always set up; its not random).

True. But in the past ~3 years, I've passed about 4 Garda checkpoints for speed. And that would be all sorts of mileage and area's. Would anyone here see one, say once a week? I doubt it.

djimi

ironclaw wrote: »

True. But in the past ~3 years, I've passed about 4 Garda checkpoints for speed. And that would be all sorts of mileage and area's. Would anyone here see one, say once a week? I doubt it.

I see them regularly enough, but always in the same place (ie on the N7 just before Johnstown they have a little lay by). Theres no mystery to it. I couldnt tell you the last time I saw a Garda carry out a random speed check point.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

On the grand scale of things, I'd be of the opinion traffic calming is far more effective. You have to slow down for a ramp, you don't have to slow down on the off chance a camera is there. For cameras to be effectively they have to have the ability to be placed anywhere. GoSafe is currently too constrained to be effective in my eyes. Most drivers know where they are going to be and adjust accordingly. Granted the Garda can set up anywhere but they don't. I'm not aware of any other country where mobile cameras are constrained to pre-set zones.

If your travelling 100km, and you know a 3km stretch has a GoSafe van (From signs etc) you'll just slow down for that 3% of your journey. You have 97% left to make up 'lost time' (By speed if you want to) Contrast this to 'the fear' of a GoSafe van being anywhere along that 100km stretch. You'll be a lot more cautious and probably slow down to a far greater degree.

Traffic calming (such as vertical deflection in the form of speed bumps/humps/tables/cushions etc) is only applicable where the current free speed and the target speed are not hugely different and where the appropriate speed is not too high for a ramp. You don't want vehicles going airborne (or maybe some people do ). For that reason I don't think it's possible to say that there's a grand scheme of things where traffic calming is better than GoSafe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGUsc-rj2V4

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm not aware of any other country where mobile cameras are constrained to pre-set zones.

Well now, that's an interesting observation if it is true. Any evidence to support it?

I've already stated my opinion that it's irrational to wait until people have died before implementing speed surveillance. If free speeds is too high then the risk is already apparent, and imho it's stupid to think that there's no problem unless fatalities have actually occurred. In my view speed surveillance is needed wherever speeding occurs. In urban areas where there are vulnerable road users then both surveillance and traffic calming are required.*

However, it's also a question of resource allocation and cost-effectiveness I suppose. On Crimeline last night a Garda said that the GoSafe programme covered just 2.5% of the road network but that the selected zones covered 50% of fatalities.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=10887





EDIT: On second thoughts, in urban areas traffic calming ought to be self-enforcing. But where speeding occurs in the absence of traffic calming then enforcement is needed.

http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/AB05H0901.pdf

.

Saab Ed

The most effective way to actually reduce speed (imo) is to place signs randomly on the roads saying "speed camera ahead" Given that the objective is to reduce speed then this is very possibly the most cost effective way of doing things.

Iwannahurl

If there was any evidence to support that idea then governments wouldn't be spending millions on actual speed cameras.

You can fool some of the people some of the time...

ManMade

Saab Ed wrote: »

The most effective way to actually reduce speed (imo) is to place signs randomly on the roads saying "speed camera ahead" Given that the objective is to reduce speed then this is very possibly the most cost effective way of doing things.

Sounds a bit like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-21922260


The most effective way to reduce speeding would be to raise speed limits. On roads where everyone already breaks them, say a 100km/h road that most people do 100-110km/h why not raise the limit to 105km/h?

If they put rumble strips in built up areas that would slow people down. At the moment the only thing that slows people down in urban areas are the potholes.

ironclaw

ManMade wrote: »

The most effective way to reduce speeding would be to raise speed limits. On roads where everyone already breaks them, say a 100km/h road that most people do 100-110km/h why not raise the limit to 105km/h?

In fairness, people would just creep up to the limit and you'd be adjusting it again. I think most roads need to be reviewed and a sensible limit applied. I have no issue with a 50 section with a school / estate leading on to it. But a 50 zone in the middle of no where or on a straight ring road is lunacy.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

In fairness, people would just creep up to the limit and you'd be adjusting it again.

Precisely.

Or to be more precise, a proportion of motorists will exceed the new limit.

It's a well-recognised phenomenon called "speed creep".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16533112